Social support encompasses various functions within social networks, facilitating emotional, instrumental, and informational exchanges that promote well-being (House et al. 1988; Thoits 2011; Sueur et al. 2021). Emotional support, such as empathy and reassurance, directly contributes to psychological health and can buffer against stress. However, perceived social support often correlates more strongly with well-being than enacted support, which may sometimes yield contrary effects, as studies have shown (Haber et al. 2007; Chu et al. 2010). This discrepancy between perceived and provided support underscores the role of individual perception in social dynamics (Sueur et al. 2024).

The cognitive triad theory by Beck (1979) suggests that depressive thought patterns—negative views of self, environment, and future—distort perceptions, which may affect social support recognition. Individuals with depression often struggle to perceive or remember supportive behaviors accurately, filtering out positive feedback (Gotlib and Joormann 2010). These biases highlight the importance of subjective interpretation in social relationships, with social cognition research suggesting that social support exhibits trait-like stability and that pre-existing cognitive schemas shape support perception (Mankowski and Wyer 1997).

Gender differences in support perception have been widely documented, with young women generally perceiving and offering more social support than men (Rueger et al. 2016). Socialization influences may explain these discrepancies; for instance, girls often learn to express warmth and empathy more readily, enhancing both their recognition of and access to support (Brashears et al. 2016). Consequently, support dynamics are not only shaped by individual mental health and social network structure but also by sociocultural factors that influence emotional processing and relationship assessment.

Krüger et al. (2024) brings innovative elements to understanding social support discrepancies among adolescents by employing a dual-perspective network analysis. Unlike traditional studies that focus on either the support provider’s or receiver’s perspective, this research uses both perspectives within adolescent social networks to reveal the degree of mismatch in support perception. For example, “provided but not perceived” and “perceived but not provided” support discrepancies were identified, illuminating how gender influences support dynamics. Findings reveal that young men are more likely to experience unnoticed support provision, suggesting that gender norms around emotional expression could hinder recognition of support in male-provided interactions.

Additionally, the study finds that discrepancies are more common in opposite-sex dyads than same-sex ones, highlighting how gender-based socialization impacts support perceptions. Adolescents, especially in cross-gender interactions, may face interpretative challenges in recognizing support, possibly due to gendered expectations around emotional engagement. This gender-focused insight into social support perception is unique, providing a new layer of understanding for support network dynamics in adolescence.

Another innovative aspect is the study’s integration of mental health and loneliness as variables. Contrary to previous assumptions, these factors do not significantly impact support perception discrepancies, challenging the view that mental health primarily skews support perception. This finding suggests that social support recognition issues may be less about individual mental health status and more about relational dynamics and social norms.

In methodological terms, the use of multi-level modeling to account for school-level variations and individual differences further advances social support research by offering a more granular view of how environmental and personal factors intersect to shape support perceptions among adolescents​. It would be particularly interesting to explore how this methodology could be applied to animal social network analyses (Sueur et al. 2012; Battesti et al. 2015; Borgeaud et al. 2017; Romano et al. 2018), especially given evidence that loneliness exists in monkeys (Capitanio et al. 2014, 2019). For example, studies could investigate whether similar discrepancies exist in animal groups, such as unrecognized affiliative behaviors or mismatches in perceived versus actual social bonds. By adapting this approach, researchers could examine how social perception and interaction influence group cohesion, stress buffering, and overall well-being in animal societies, potentially offering a deeper understanding of the evolutionary and ecological drivers of social support in non-human species.

References

Battesti M, Pasquaretta C, Moreno C, et al (2015) Ecology of information: social transmission dynamics within groups of non-social insects. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:20142480. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2480

Beck AT (1979) Cognitive Therapy and the Emotional Disorders. Penguin

Borgeaud C, Sosa S, Sueur C, Bshary R (2017) The influence of demographic variation on social network stability in wild vervet monkeys. Anim Behav 134:155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2017.09.028

Brashears ME, Hoagland E, Quintane E (2016) Sex and network recall accuracy. Soc Netw 44:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2015.06.002

Capitanio JP, Cacioppo S, Cole SW (2019) Loneliness in monkeys: neuroimmune mechanisms. Curr Opin Behav Sci 28:51–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.013

Capitanio JP, Hawkley LC, Cole SW, Cacioppo JT (2014) A Behavioral Taxonomy of Loneliness in Humans and Rhesus Monkeys (Macaca mulatta). PLOS ONE 9:e110307. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110307

Chu PS, Saucier DA, Hafner E (2010) Meta-Analysis of the Relationships Between Social Support and Well-Being in Children and Adolescents. J Soc Clin Psychol 29:624–645. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.624

Gotlib IH, Joormann J (2010) Cognition and Depression: Current Status and Future Directions. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 6:285–312. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131305

Haber MG, Cohen JL, Lucas T, Baltes BB (2007) The relationship between self-reported received and perceived social support: A meta-analytic review. Am J Community Psychol 39:133–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9100-9

House JS, Umberson D, Landis KR (1988) Structures and processes of social support. Annu Rev Sociol 14:293–318. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001453

Heike Krüger, Thomas Grund, Srebrenka Letina, Emily Long, Julie Riddell, Claudia Zucca, Mark McCann (2024) Discrepancies in the perception of social support relationships (Stage 1 Registered Report). OSF preprints, ver.5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Network Science https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/uc2qy

Mankowski ES, Wyer RS (1997) Cognitive Causes and Consequences of Perceived Social Support. In: Pierce GR, Lakey B, Sarason IG, Sarason BR (eds) Sourcebook of Social Support and Personality. Springer US, Boston, MA, pp 141–165

Romano V, Shen M, Pansanel J, et al (2018) Social transmission in networks: global efficiency peaks with intermediate levels of modularity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72:154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2564-9

Rueger SY, Malecki CK, Pyun Y, et al (2016) A meta-analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychol Bull 142:1017–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000058

Sueur C, Fancello G, Naud A, et al (2024) The Complexity of Social Networks in Healthy Aging: Novel Metrics and Their Associations with Psychological Well-Being. Peer Community J 4:. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.388

Sueur C, King AJ, Pelé M, Petit O (2012) Fast and accurate decisions as a result of scale-free network properties in two primate species. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Sueur C, Quque M, Naud A, et al (2021) Social capital: an independent dimension of healthy ageing. Peer Community J 1:. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.33

Thoits PA (2011) Mechanisms Linking Social Ties and Support to Physical and Mental Health. J Health Soc Behav 52:145–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510395592

Knowledge graphs [1–4] represent structured knowledge using nodes and edges, where nodes signify entities and edges denote relationships between these entities. These graphs have become essential in various fields such as cultural heritage [5], life sciences [6], and encyclopedic knowledge bases, thanks to projects like Yago [7], DBpedia [8], and Wikidata [9]. These knowledge graphs have enabled significant advancements in data integration and semantic understanding, leading to more informed scientific hypotheses and enhanced data exploration.

Despite their importance, understanding the topology and dynamics of knowledge graphs remains a challenge due to their complex and often chaotic nature. Current models, like the preferential attachment mechanism, are limited to simpler networks and fail to capture the intricate interplay of diverse relationships in knowledge graphs. There is a pressing need for models that can accurately represent the structure and dynamics of knowledge graphs, allowing for better understanding, prediction, and utilisation of the knowledge contained within them.

The paper by Lhote, Markhoff, and Soulet [10] introduces a novel approach to modelling the structure and dynamics of knowledge graphs through the concept of superficiality. This model aims to control the overlap between relationships, providing a mechanism to balance the distribution of knowledge and reduce the proportion of misdescribed entities. This is the first model tailored specifically to knowledge graphs, addressing the unique challenges posed by their complexity and diverse relationship types. The innovation lies in the introduction of superficiality, a parameter that governs the probability of adding new entities versus enriching existing ones within the graph. This model not only addresses the multimodal probability distributions observed in real KGs but also offers a more granular understanding of the knowledge distribution, particularly the presence of misdescribed entities. The authors validated their model against three major knowledge graphs: BnF, ChEMBL, and Wikidata. The results demonstrated that the generative model accurately reproduces the observed distributions of incoming and outgoing degrees in these knowledge graphs. The model successfully captures the multimodal nature and the irregularities in the degree distributions, especially for entities with low connectivity, which are typically the majority in a knowledge graphs.

One significant finding is the impact of superficiality on the level of misdescribed entities. The study revealed that lower superficiality leads to a more uniform distribution of relationships across entities, thus reducing the number of entities described by few relationships. Conversely, higher superficiality results in a higher proportion of entities with minimal descriptive facts, reflecting a paradox where increasing the volume of knowledge does not necessarily reduce the level of ignorance. The authors also conducted an ablation study comparing their model to traditional models like Barabási-Albert [11] and Bollobás [12]. The results showed that the proposed multiplex model with superficiality parameters consistently outperformed these traditional models in accurately reflecting the characteristics of real-world knowledge graphs. 

This research provides a groundbreaking approach to understanding and modelling the structure and dynamics of knowledge graphs. By introducing superficiality, the authors offer a new lens through which to examine the distribution and organisation of knowledge within these complex structures. The model not only enhances our theoretical understanding of knowledge graphs but also has practical implications for improving data storage, query optimisation, and the robustness of knowledge induction processes.

The introduction of superficiality opens several avenues for future research and application. One potential direction is refining the model to account for localised perturbations in smaller knowledge graphs or specific domains within larger knowledge graphs. Additionally, longitudinal studies could further elucidate the evolution of superficiality over time and its impact on the quality of knowledge representation. Another promising area is the application of this model in real-time knowledge graphs management systems. By adjusting superficiality parameters dynamically, it may be possible to optimise the balance between entity enrichment and the introduction of new entities, leading to more robust and accurate knowledge graphs. In the broader context of knowledge engineering and data science, this model offers a framework for exploring the vulnerability of knowledge graphs and their susceptibility to various types of biases and inaccuracies. This understanding could lead to the development of more resilient knowledge systems capable of adapting to new information while maintaining a high level of accuracy and coherence.

Overall, the concept of superficiality and the associated generative model represent significant advancements in the study and application of knowledge graphs, promising to enhance both our theoretical understanding and practical capabilities in managing and utilising these complex data structures. It would be interesting to see how this can be extended to domains in social network analyses [13,14].

References

​1.     Nickel M, Murphy K, Tresp V, Gabrilovich E. 2015 A review of relational machine learning for knowledge graphs. Proceedings of the IEEE 104, 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2015.2483592

2.     Ehrlinger L, Wöß W. 2016 Towards a definition of knowledge graphs. SEMANTiCS (Posters, Demos, SuCCESS) 48, 2.

3.     Hogan A et al. 2021 Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys (Csur) 54, 1-37.

4.     Ji S, Pan S, Cambria E, Marttinen P, Philip SY. 2021 A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems 33, 494-514. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843

5.     Bikakis A, Hyvönen E, Jean S, Markhoff B, Mosca A. 2021 Special issue on semantic web for cultural heritage. Semantic Web 12, 163-167. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-210425

6.     Santos A et al. 2022 A knowledge graph to interpret clinical proteomics data. Nature biotechnology 40, 692-702. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-01145-6

7.     Suchanek FM, Kasneci G, Weikum G. 2007 Yago: a core of semantic knowledge. pp. 697-706. https://doi.org/10.1145/1242572.1242667

8.     Auer S, Bizer C, Kobilarov G, Lehmann J, Cyganiak R, Ives Z. 2007 Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. pp. 722-735. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_52

9.     Mora-Cantallops M, Sánchez-Alonso S, García-Barriocanal E. 2019 A systematic literature review on Wikidata. Data Technologies and Applications 53, 250-268. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTA-12-2018-0110

10.  Lhote L, Markhoff B, Soulet A. 2023 The Structure and Dynamics of Knowledge Graphs, with Superficiality. arXiv, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Network Science. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.08116

11.  Barabási A-L, Albert R. 1999 Emergence of scaling in random networks. science 286, 509-512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509

12.  Bollobás B, Borgs C, Chayes JT, Riordan O. 2003 Directed scale-free graphs. pp. 132-139. Baltimore, MD, United States.

13.  Sueur C, King AJ, Pelé M, Petit O. 2013 Fast and accurate decisions as a result of scale-free network properties in two primate species. In Proceedings of the European conference on complex systems 2012 (eds T Gilbert, M Kirkilionis, G Nicolis), pp. 579-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00395-5_71

14.  Romano V, Shen M, Pansanel J, MacIntosh AJJ, Sueur C. 2018 Social transmission in networks: global efficiency peaks with intermediate levels of modularity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 72, 154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2564-9

The study of Gaucherel et al. (2024) represents a groundbreaking shift in the field of ecosystem representation and management (DeFries and Nagendra 2017), offering a comprehensive and innovative approach that emphasises the importance of dynamic and complex models to accurately understand and preserve our ecosystems.

At the heart of this pioneering work is the introduction of advanced representational methods such as interaction networks and hypergraphs (Bretto 2013; Golubski et al. 2016), which mark a significant departure from traditional static models. These novel representations are adept at capturing the intricate, multi-component interactions within ecosystems, thereby providing a much more nuanced and interconnected view of ecological systems.

This approach is particularly innovative as it moves beyond the simplicity of previous models, offering a dynamic, fluid, and interconnected perspective of ecological dynamics that is more reflective of the real-world complexity of these systems. Furthermore, the study proposes the integration of social networks with ecological ones (Sosa et al. 2021; Sueur 2023), acknowledging the profound impact that human activities have on natural systems (Afana 2021; Elmqvist et al. 2021; Pelé et al. 2021). This interdisciplinary approach is pioneering in its attempt to bridge the gap between social and ecological studies, underscoring the interconnectedness of natural and human systems and highlighting the need for a holistic approach to ecosystem management (Stokols et al. 2013; Stone-Jovicich 2015).

The significance of the study lies not only in its methodological innovations but also in the implications it holds for the field of ecology and environmental management. By employing these advanced methodologies, the study provides a more thorough understanding of ecosystems. By considering a wide range of components and their interactions, these models offer insights into the complex dynamics of ecosystems, which are crucial for developing effective conservation and management strategies. This comprehensive approach is particularly important in an era where ecosystems are increasingly threatened by a variety of factors, including climate change, habitat destruction, and pollution (Mantyka‐pringle et al. 2012; Trathan et al. 2015).

Additionally, the dynamic nature of the proposed models, especially the use of hypergraphs, facilitates the adaptive management of ecosystems. By accurately representing the changing interactions and components within these systems, these models enable managers and policymakers to respond more effectively to ecological changes, ensuring that conservation efforts are both effective and timely (Ascough Ii et al. 2008; Fischer et al. 2009; McKinley et al. 2017). Moreover, the advanced modelling techniques proposed by the study have the potential to significantly improve predictive capabilities regarding ecosystem dynamics. Understanding the complex interactions and the long-term dynamics of ecosystems allows for better anticipation of future changes and challenges, a crucial aspect in a rapidly changing world where ecosystems are under constant threat.

In conclusion, this study marks a significant advancement in the field of ecological representation and management. Its innovative approach in utilising complex models like hypergraphs and integrating social and ecological networks provides a more comprehensive, dynamic, and nuanced understanding of ecosystems. Such innovations are crucial in an era of rapid environmental change and increasing anthropogenic pressures.

By enhancing our ability to understand, predict, and manage ecosystem dynamics, this study lays the groundwork for more effective conservation strategies and ecosystem management practices. It underscores the need for a holistic approach to understanding and preserving our natural world, recognising the intricate and interconnected nature of ecosystems and the pivotal role humans play within them.

References

Afana R (2021) Ecocide, Speciesism, Vulnerability: Revisiting Positive Peace in the Anthropocene. In: Standish K, Devere H, Suazo A, Rafferty R (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Positive Peace. Springer, Singapore, pp 1-18
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3877-3_33-1

Ascough Ii J, Maier H, Ravalico J, Strudley M (2008) Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecol Model 219:383-399
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.07.015

Bretto A (2013) Hypergraph theory. Introd Math Eng Cham Springer 1:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00080-0_1

DeFries R, Nagendra H (2017) Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science 356:265-270
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1950

Elmqvist T, Andersson E, McPhearson T, et al (2021) Urbanization in and for the Anthropocene. Npj Urban Sustain 1:6
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00018-w

Fischer J, Peterson GD, Gardner TA, et al (2009) Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:549-554
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.020

Gaucherel C, Cosme M, Noûs C, Pommereau F (2024) A single changing hypernetwork to represent (social-)ecological dynamics. bioRxiv, 2023.10.30.564699, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Network Science.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.10.30.564699

Golubski AJ, Westlund EE, Vandermeer J, Pascual M (2016) Ecological networks over the edge: hypergraph trait-mediated indirect interaction (TMII) structure. Trends Ecol Evol 31:344-354
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.006

Mantyka‐pringle CS, Martin TG, Rhodes JR (2012) Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Glob Change Biol 18:1239-1252
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02593.x

McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, et al (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15-28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015

Pelé M, Georges J-Y, Matsuzawa T, Sueur C (2021) Editorial: Perceptions of Human-Animal Relationships and Their Impacts on Animal Ethics, Law and Research. Front Psychol 11:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.631238

Sosa S, Jacoby D, Lihoreau M, Sueur C (2021) Animal social networks: Towards an integrative framework embedding social interactions, space and time. Methods Ecol Evol 12:4-9
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13539

Stokols D, Lejano RP, Hipp J (2013) Enhancing the Resilience of Human-Environment Systems: a Social Ecological Perspective. Ecol Soc 18:
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05301-180107

Stone-Jovicich S (2015) Probing the interfaces between the social sciences and social-ecological resilience: insights from integrative and hybrid perspectives in the social sciences. Ecol Soc 20:
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07347-200225

Sueur C (2023) Socioconnectomics: Connectomics Should Be Extended to Societies to Better Understand Evolutionary Processes. Sci 5:5. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci5010005
https://doi.org/10.3390/sci5010005

Trathan PN, García‐Borboroglu P, Boersma D, et al (2015) Pollution, habitat loss, fishing, and climate change as critical threats to penguins. Conserv Biol 29:31-41
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12349

Social relationships are recognized as an important age-related mediator of health in humans and fitness-related traits in animals (Sueur et al., 2021). Vandeleest et al. (2024) is a pioneering exploration into the complex interplay between social relationships and health in rhesus macaques. It breaks new ground by differentiating between two types of affiliative relationships – multiplex (engaging in multiple types of affiliative behaviors like grooming and contact sitting) and uniplex (involving only one type of behavior, such as grooming) (Beisner et al., 2020). The study's crux lies in its novel approach to understanding how these differing social interactions correlate with biomarkers of inflammation, namely pro-inflammatory cytokines like IL-6 and TNF-alpha.

The research is innovative in its use of social network analysis (Sosa et al., 2021), allowing for a nuanced view of the rhesus macaques' social dynamics. It reveals that multiplex grooming networks, characterized by more modular structures and kin bias, are associated with lower inflammation levels. This is in contrast to uniplex grooming networks, where a stronger link to social status correlates with higher inflammation. These findings suggest that multiplex relationships could serve as supportive, health-promoting bonds, while uniplex relationships might be more transactional, with possible physiological costs.

Moreover, the study's results highlight the importance of the diversity of affiliative interactions within a dyad. It posits that relationships involving multiple types of affiliative behaviors may have different implications for health and well-being compared to those based on a single behavior type, even if interaction rates are similar. This insight opens up new avenues for understanding the health implications of social behaviors in non-human primates and potentially in humans (Sueur et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the network structures, examining kin bias, clustering, modularity, and associations with dominance rank. It also evaluates the correlations between individual network positions and health markers, offering a multifaceted understanding of how social networks influence physical well-being.

In essence, this research makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the link between sociality and health. It underscores the complexity of social relationships (Moscovice et al., 2020) and their varied impacts on health, suggesting that the nature of social bonds (multiplex vs. uniplex) plays a critical role in determining their health consequences. This study not only enhances our comprehension of primate social behavior but also has broader implications for the fields of social neuroscience, behavioral ecology, and health psychology.

References

Beisner, B., Braun, N., Pósfai, M., Vandeleest, J., D’Souza, R., & McCowan, B. (2020). A multiplex centrality metric for complex social networks: Sex, social status, and family structure predict multiplex centrality in rhesus macaques. PeerJ, 8, e8712. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8712

Moscovice, L. R., Sueur, C., & Aureli, F. (2020). How socio-ecological factors influence the differentiation of social relationships: An integrated conceptual framework. Biology Letters, 16(9), 20200384. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2020.0384

Sosa, S., Sueur, C., & Puga-Gonzalez, I. (2021). Network measures in animal social network analysis: Their strengths, limits, interpretations and uses. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13366

Sueur, C., Quque, M., Naud, A., Bergouignan, A., & Criscuolo, F. (2021). Social capital: An independent dimension of healthy ageing. Peer Community Journal, 1. https://doi.org/10.24072/pcjournal.33

Vandeleest, J. J., Wooddell, L. J., Nathman, A. C., Beisner, B. A., & McCowan, B. (2024). Differential effects of multiplex and uniplex affiliative relationships on biomarkers of inflammation. bioRxiv, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Network Science. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.11.01.514247